Like you yourself have said: the old cRPGs had lots of combat and it still wasn't the focus for them (although I would consider games like Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate to be dungeon crawlers, which are fairly heavily combat-oriented).
Agreed.
1) Apparently it's not clear, because I don't "feel that only shooter combat is interesting". It's not. In fact, I was stating, multiple times, that FPS gameplay from CP77 looks like "industry's standard" and is "generic", which wasn't meant in a good way.
2) I never said that "a game has to be limited only to shooter combat", so don't try to put that in my mouth.
My apologies, I misread or misinterpreted what you did write.
That being the case, I still fail to understand why you seem to feel CDPR shouldn't put any effort into the dual mode system I've suggested. Give shooter players what they want, and RPRers what they do. It's a single player game (at least to start with) so the two methods don't have to deal with each other at all. Admittedly any multiplayer component will have to be shooter based, but personally I'm not terribly interested in team deathmatch battles over neighborhoods (or whatever multiplayer consists of), I just want a singleplayer RPG gameplay option.
I remember their first, second and third attempt at combat in the subsequent Witcher games. And the first one was the worst of them all. The second and the third had some quality of life improvements, but they weren't dramatically different. So forgive me for not having faith in them making something more interesting than the industry's standard, which I don't find too compelling, especially after seeing how combat looked like in the live gameplay.
First game by a new studio almost none of who's staff have any video game design experience? Yeah, W1 had problems, but W2 was better, and W3 better still. What more can you reasonably expect?
With Cyberpunk on the other hand they have a fully designed and fleshed out RPG to use as a roadmap. Yet they apparently threw that map out the window and picked up a shooter one. Can they make CP2077 a decent shooter? Probably. Can they make it a decent RPG following their current road map? Probably not.
We are not. I am not denying that you can have various mechanics in a computer game. I simply don't claim one to be superior over the others (or right/wrong), like you do.
For various tasks certain mechanics are superior, or right/wrong, but that
ONLY applies to those tasks, not the mechanics in general. A subtle perhaps, but critical difference. In an RPG character mechanics are what make it an RPG.
If combat is a significant portion gameplay (i.e. you spend significantly more play time doing combat then dialog or travelling or whatever), and combat is controlled primarily by player input (and I don't mean deciding where to go or what to shoot, if that were the case most war games are RPGs) then your game is not an RPG no matter how much dialog it has. Because that core gameplay element does not use RPG mechanics.
They do. You clearly fail to realize the significance, the value of having your aim sway less when aiming. Because it makes all the difference in the world. It's what enables one player to hit his mark precisely, while the other can only pray while he pulls the trigger, because he can't stabilize his aim just as well as someone with more skill that controls the weapon.
Does it mean you still have player's skill in play? Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that having character's skill can make an immense impact on the outcome. So, yeah, the compromise between the two is very much possible in a video game. And it's pretty much the most likely way CDPR can implement character's skills in CP77 in the current state of the game.
You're correct, I don't understand the difference because I do no (can not) play most shooter (or platformer, or racing, or whatever) games.
But, the mechanics you suggest will piss off shooter players immensely, and fail to satisfy RPG players. Hybrid systems don't work player-wise, yes they can work mechanically, but they cannot satisfy both player bases.
Indie developer at its core? Uh... No. They are not. At least not anymore. They are a big name with big money. They have good PR and they know how valuable it is to have good opinion amongst the gamers, but they became a big company and - like all companies - want their product to sell. So they will try to identify their biggest potential buyer market and try to hit it for the maximum value.
If what you say is true they wouldn't be making RPGs at all, they'd be doing shooter or sports games. Sure they want to make money, who doesn't. But they want to make it by giving players a quality product. They're not doing an E/A, analyze the most profitable path and follow it ... "As your publisher we say you must have multiplayer and microtransactions in your game whether they fit the theme or not."
Why else do you think the combat we have seen looks the way it looks like and seems so detached from CP2020 it's supposed to draw an inspiration from?
I am still waiting for them to show something innovative or alternative.
Here I'll admit to being totally and completely bewildered.
I have no clue why CDPR has taken this path. My guess is they think they can appeal to shooter fans with the games combat and RPG fans with it's dialog/story. To an extent they can. But to much dialog, to many choices in character building will alienate shooters, to little of both RPGers. Can they fins some magical balance point that doesn't piss off both groups ... maybe ... can they find one that satisfies both ... probably not.
There's a big difference between not being pissed off by a game and actually liking it.
I understand what you're getting at here but where is the line drawn? How much of the combat has to be dictated by the character vs the player for it to go from RPG to FPS combat? I ask because in most older games universally viewed as a "pure" RPG the decisions of the character were made by the player. The outcome of those decisions was made by the game via background calculations (case and point, 1d10 weapon randomly inflicts 1 to 10 points of damage, with the exact value completely outside the control of the player).
Really, my question is do action outcomes have to be completely controlled by the game for the combat to be acceptably RPG enough?
I ask because IMO it would be acceptable if they were suitably influenced by the game for it to qualify (stats, skills, abilities impact it significantly, but not completely).
Don't confuse the decisions a player makes as to where to go, what to attack, who to speak to, etc. with with mechanics of how outcomes are determined. They are two entirely separate things.
The mechanics used to determine outcome are what make a shooter a shooter, or an RPG an RPG.
